The Instigator
atheismo
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
TheEpicMinecrafter
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points

god exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
TheEpicMinecrafter
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 653 times Debate No: 36058
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (9)

 

atheismo

Con

god is not a real being he doesnt exist.

i used to debate the sentience arugment but i am moving on to something more scientific and rational. i like the sentince argument but it only atacks the god of the kalam.

here is the rules
round 1 - accept
round 2 - argue
round 3 - rebutalls
round 4 - rebuttals and closing
TheEpicMinecrafter

Pro

I accept this challenge, and will show that God does exist.
Debate Round No. 1
atheismo

Con

thank you minecrafter for excepting my chalenge. i will prove thag god doesnt exist. here is my logic.

1. nothing perfect can exist
2. god is perfect
3. therefore god cant exist

this is a perfectly rational argument. it is based in up to date science and logic.

premise 1 is obvious. it is intuitive. for instance we always say "pobodys nerfect." but what does this mean? it means that every person has their faults. their flaws. for instance sometimes people run red lights. sometimes i eat too much. eerything whvh exists has a flaw. this is just obvious from our eperience in the world as freethinking creatures.

2 well suppsedly god is perfect. for instance all of theism says that there must be a perfect being. like god is the perfect thing. in the BS ontolgical arguments god is maximaly great ie perfect. not only do we have different ideas of what perfect is but this doesnt evn make sense. like what if i say i like sandals more than shoes. god would have to wear sandals not shoes then. but i mean this is bsde the point bc god is sipposed to be perfect.

premis 3 god cant exist becahse god is suposed to be perfect and nothing perfect can exist.

sources
i dont hae any sources but that doesnt mean my argument isnt confirmed ny science. i just couldnt find any scientists that said this, but plenty f scientists are atheists.
TheEpicMinecrafter

Pro

I am happy to explain my point of view.
Countless arguments have been proposed in attempt to prove the existence of God. Some of the most notable arguments are the 5 ways of Aquinas, the Argument from Desire proposed by C.S Lewis, and the Ontological Argument formulated both by St. Anselm and Descartes. Even among theists, these proofs are heavily debated. Some, such as the Ontological Argument, are highly controversial among theists.

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: “By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e.., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.” For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological Argument.

There are many philosophical issues concerning the existence of God. Some definitions of God are nonspecific, while others can be self-contradictory. Arguments for the existence of God typically include metaphysical, empirical, inductive, and subjective types, while others revolve around perceived holes in evolutionary theory and order and complexity in the world.

Arguments against the existence of God typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive types. Conclusions reached include views that: "no one knows whether God exists"; "God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (weak theism); and that "God exists and this can be proven" (strong theism). There are numerous variations on these positions.


If God did not make the universe, then who did? Can something come out of nothing?

My opponent also says that nothing perfect can exist. There is no proof for this statement nor any laws or arguments, as I have provided.

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
atheismo

Con

"proofs" for the existence god

my opponent didnt even offer a logical argument just a paragrpha of text about argumetns for god. he never even tried to argue for the ontological argument just explained what it was.

anyway then he says that if god did not make the universe, then what did? well it was a quantum particle. lawrence krauss who is a professor of physics and a scientist wrote an entire book just to explain to christians that genesis 1.1 which is "in the beginning god created the universe" is nonsense because it was a quantum particle. here is the book on amazon
http://www.amazon.com...

anyway when ancient jews wrote genesis they didnt know about quantum mechanics.

"The development of quantum mechanics began in 1900 with Planck's study of black body radiation" - Nuclear Principles in Engineering by Tatjana Jevremovic

"The life of Abraham, patriarch of the Hebrews, dates to 1850 BCE" -- AP World history by Deborah Vess

1850 BCE knew more than 1900 AD? lol. yeah no

perfection

my opponent says i havent proved nothing perfect can exist when i already did. anything you look at will have flaws. for instance even the wandering jew had a flaw, he made fun of jesus as the legend goes. here are a few scientific sources that nothing is perfect.

"Nothing is perfect" - The Hole in the Universe: How Scientists Peered over the Edge of Emptiness and Found Everything by kc cole

"Nothing is Perfect" - The Physics of Invisibility: A Story of Light and Deception by Martin Beech

nothing is perfect. its obvious. if you deny this youre just kidding yourself. since nothing is perfect, god can't be perfect. perfection doesnt exist in nature.
TheEpicMinecrafter

Pro

If you understood my article correctly, you probably would have understood. Since you have many capitalization errors and many misspellings, I assume that you don't understand the article I posted or correct English, since it had lots of vocabulary, such as the Ontological Argument, which is a major part of the existence of God. Here is an easier way to visualize it. It is not all about jews or christians. We are talking about one being who created the universe. If you don't know what or who created the universe, then it must be that the universe is God.


The Gospel according to St. Luke says: "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much." An aid in approaching perfection is an awareness of God's perfection and of one's own imperfection. This is an exact quote from the Bible, although it does not necessarily mean that the Christian God created the universe. It could have been a single being of no race creating the universe. You are right that nothing can be right in nature. God is perfect because he is not part of nature. He is the creator of nature. We are nature. The Jewish God isn't the only god that we believe in. Some Chinese people believe in a whole different God.
Here is a list of all the different Gods that I know of.
  • God in Christianity
  • God in Gnosticism
  • God in Hinduism
  • God in Islam
  • God in Jainism
  • God in Judaism
  • God in Sikhism
  • God in Jewish

Again, it isn't all about Jews. We are just talking about the one being who created the universe.

I ask the same question again. If God did not create the universe, who or what did? Something cannot come out of nothing, so it must mean that God created the universe.
Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...
P.S You haven't listed any sources, so how can I believe everything you wrote?
Debate Round No. 3
atheismo

Con

this is the worst debate ive ever had, people in the comment section are going nuts like a squirrel, and now i have to deal with you

god

theres nothing to even say here my opponent qutoed the bible and gave al ist of religions which have gods. ok i get it religions have gods, so what? i already answered this with a quantum particle. take a look at this book by phyciscs Lawrence Krauss: A Universe from Nothing. quantum mechanics (unknown to all the religions) can explain the unvierse better than god can. its just pure logic and science.

perfect

you say god has to be perfect. but ive quoted like a million science articles which say the exact opposite that nothing is perfect. NOTHING IS PERFECT. everything has flaws. seriously this is a joke. i never even said it was all about the jews just that genesis 1:1 doesnt even prove anything, you might not even be a christian it was an example of a way christians and judaism use god to explain everything when its just QUANTUM MECHANICS AND A VACUUM

this is just cherry picking. you cant say eerything is perfect except god. well why is god perfect? why isnt everything perfect too? why do i have an eating disorder and god is perfect? why do other people have glasses and i dont? etc. why is god the only thing in the ENTIRE UNIERSE who is "perfect"?? this is cherry picking at its finest.

i listed four sources in my last round i used two for the history of science and the "history" of "religion" and then i used two sources from scientific for that nothing is perfect. give me some credit, seriously
TheEpicMinecrafter

Pro

The Ontological Argument proves that God does exist. You are right that nothing in perfect in nature. Here is a famous quote from the Ontological Argument by Mulla Sadra.
  1. There is existence
  2. Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived
  3. God is perfection and perfection in existence
  4. Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism
  5. That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism).
  6. That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence.
  7. Hence God exists.
Here is another quote on the Ontological Argument by Mulla Sadra.
Existence is a single, objective and simple reality, and there is no difference between its parts, unless in terms of perfection and imperfection, strength, and weakness… And the culmination of its perfection, where there is nothing more perfect, is its independence from any other thing. Nothing more perfect should be conceivable, as every imperfect thing belongs to another thing and needs to become perfect. And, as it has already been explicated, perfection is prior to imperfection, actuality to potency, and existence to non-existence. Also, it has been explained that the perfection of a thing is the thing itself, and not a thing in addition to it. Thus, either existence is independent of others or it is in need of others. The former is the Necessary, which is pure existence. Nothing is more perfect than Him. And in Him there is no room for non-existence or imperfection. The latter is other than Him, and is regarded as His acts and effects, and for other than Him there is no subsistence, unless through Him. For there is no imperfection in the reality of existence, and imperfection is added to existence only because of the quality of being caused, as it is impossible for an effect to be identical with its cause in terms of existence. Therefore, God exists.

Another mathematictian named Kurt Gödel explained that God exists in a logical way.

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive

Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B

Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified

Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by atheismo 3 years ago
atheismo
no magic000 that was not a troll debate, i was using an argument...
Posted by atheismo 3 years ago
atheismo
wow the rfd says 'pobodys nerfect' was an error but that was a dam example of an idiom that means nthing is perfect.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
Is this a troll debate?
Posted by SeattleSonics 3 years ago
SeattleSonics
I'm an atheist, but your arguments are outright irrational.
Posted by atheismo 3 years ago
atheismo
wow this is ridiculous he posted an entire argument in the last round so i couldnt respond

honestly that just shows how dishonest some of the dbaters on here are.

get on my freakin level
Posted by chainmachine 3 years ago
chainmachine
Is this guy serious? Come on man, take the 5 minutes to look exponentially smarter just by using proper English.
Posted by atheismo 3 years ago
atheismo
indont have to im just tying to get a poit across
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
Use proper spelling, punctuation and grammar.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
atheismoTheEpicMinecrafterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: God is a belief. If you can't prove He exists, you can't prove He doesn't. There's a difference between logic and belief. You believe, you don't know. Anyway, Con didn't use punctuation at all, and I noticed some spelling mistakes in his arguments. Note to Con: You get marks for spelling, punctuation and grammar. Just because you're not schooling, doesn't mean you don't use punctuation, grammar, spelling and all that. USE SPELLING, PUNCTUATION, GRAMMAR, ETC.
Vote Placed by FrackJack 3 years ago
FrackJack
atheismoTheEpicMinecrafterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ugh. Con had terrible G/S. Pro had a better arguments. Cons first argument is logically unsound and this prove the first premise.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
atheismoTheEpicMinecrafterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB Themoderate: That one side should have used sources, is irrelevant to spelling/argument/conduct. Please only vote on areas your RTF mentions.
Vote Placed by Themoderate 3 years ago
Themoderate
atheismoTheEpicMinecrafterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con should have used sources.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
atheismoTheEpicMinecrafterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con doesn't capitalize words at the beginning of his sentences. There are numerous examples of misspelled words (premis). Inconsistent use of time markers between BCE and AD (instead of CE). Double punctuation after certain sentences. Use of "lol". All of these things by Con gave these easy points to Pro.
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
atheismoTheEpicMinecrafterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G to Pro because Con did not make use of proper grammar. Con broke basic grammar rules like capitalizing the first letter in every sentence. There is also a bizarre instance where Con says "pobodys nerfect". How do you make such a basic mistake? How do you confuse a p for an n and an n for a p? They're not even close on a keyboard! Arguments to Pro because Pro showed that it is a non-sequitur to say that god can't be perfect just because nothing in nature is. Con did not demonstrate any way that you can go from "This set of things is not perfect" to "Nothing is perfect". Con frequently mentioned Lawrence Krauss, but he didn't present any evidence to support the hypothesis, or even explain what it was beyond a vague reference to a "quantum particle". Conduct to Con because Pro made new arguments in the last round. You are not allowed to present new arguments in the final round of a debate. Your opponent is not able to respond to it, so it's not fair.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
atheismoTheEpicMinecrafterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Chainmachines obvious votebomb.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
atheismoTheEpicMinecrafterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used sources and had better spelling. Con's spelling needed a bit improvement especially if we look at the first round.
Vote Placed by chainmachine 3 years ago
chainmachine
atheismoTheEpicMinecrafterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a complete blowout.